Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes

Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes

Monday, 03 June 2013 09:29
By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout | News Analysis

The court-martial of Bradley Manning, the most significant whistleblower case since Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, has begun. Although Manning pled guilty earlier this year to 10 offenses that will garner him 20 years in custody, military prosecutors insist on pursuing charges of aiding the enemy and violation of the Espionage Act, carrying life in prison. The Obama administration, which has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior presidencies combined, seeks to send a strong message to would-be whistleblowers to keep their mouths shut.

A legal duty to report war crimes

Manning is charged with crimes for sending hundreds of thousands of classified files, documents and videos, including the "Collateral Murder" video, the "Iraq War Logs," the "Afghan War Logs" and State Department cables to Wikileaks. Many of the things he transmitted contain evidence of war crimes.

The "Collateral Murder" video depicts a US Apache attack helicopter killing 12 civilians and wounding two children on the ground in Baghdad in 2007. The helicopter then fired on and killed the people trying to rescue the wounded. Finally, a US tank drove over one of the bodies, cutting the man in half. These acts constitute three separate war crimes.

Manning fulfilled his legal duty to report war crimes. He complied with his legal duty to obey lawful orders but also his legal duty to disobey unlawful orders. ...........................(more)

7. Why should he be pardoned? He had the option of whistleblowing under the law, and he chose a

18. Good answer!! He could have exposed the few bad things

without exposing so much other intelligence and putting so many lives at risk. No telling how many were killed BECAUSE of him. The fact is, he had a gripe against the Army more than trying to expose a war crime. And he chose the wrong way to "get back" at them.

33. Bullshit,

he could have gone to any Congressman or Senator and turned over those docs., which would have been legal, instead, he choose to willy nilly turn over classified docs to a commercial entity, which was illegal.

112. he was a civilian

137. And...

Because Ellsberg became the target of Nixon's plumbers, including illegal wiretaps and a break-in at the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist in attempt to obtain his medical records. When it became clear that any attempt to prosecute Ellsberg would cause even more damage as the Watergate scandal continued to unfold, the Nixon Administration abandoned its efforts to prosecute him.

113. Of course investigations are reserved for others

It will never happen. We all know that!
I'll bet the evidence is there. From the secret oil meetings, to the Office Of Special Plans, to Plame, to yellowcake, to torture and more.
As long as Cheney and the rest are not even being investigated, I'll stand up for Manning.

U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 16, 2013

WASHINGTON — A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.

The sweeping, 600-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group.

How Cheney aggregated power at key national security centers -- the Pentagon, State and White House -- and lists the positions his friends and allies have held during the time period leading up to the 2003 war in Iraq.

117. you lost me

118. "It will never happen. We all know that! "

No Democratic officeholder is calling for "it" to happen. Either every single one is much more ignorant than you are, or they're unwilling to, in which case they're complicit in keeping charges from being made.

119. if you put it that way, I guess they are

of course there doesn't seem to be a shortage of Republican investigations into Democrats. It seems like one endless Whitewater. The Democrats don't manufacture fake "scandals" as far as I know.

But nobody wants another Iran/Contra or Watergate scale investigation into something that actually warrants investigation, do they? Very simply, that would mean uncovering some very serious
matters which no one wants to deal with.

81. Really? His buddy Libby covered for him in the Valerie Plame affair and took the fall by

'obstructing justice' iow, blocking the prosecutor, 'throwing sand in his eyes' from getting to Cheney. His conviction confirmed that the crime had been committed as alleged and witness testimony confirmed that it went all the way to the top. But the critical witness was Libby and he was not about to turn in his boss. For his 'loyalty' he never served his jail sentence.

And that is just one of the crimes he committed.

Cheney lied repeatedly on National TV and to Congress to start a war that has been disastrous for our troops, for this country and for Iraq.

The evidence of his lies is public. There is hardly a person on the face of the earth who does not believe he is a criminal, a war criminal, a traitor (see Valerie Plame again).

If the rule of law applied in this country and he was charged with the crimes he committed and the evidence presented against him, and witnesses were not too intimidated to testify to the truth about him, which would have happened IF we still abided by the rule of law, Cheney would spend the rest of his life in jail at the very least.

But we have no rule of law for war criminals in high places or or Wall St. criminals, so he walks free and continues to profit from his crimes.

105. Point me to a law against lying...

...I'm not saying it's ethical or proper, but if politicians were indictable for lying, there wouldn't be many people left in Washington. Unless a politician is UNDER OATH, lying is not a crime, nor should it be.

.....and if you insist that it should be, show me an elected official of ANY ideological stripe who called for the indictment or impeachment of any member of the Bush Administration for "lying us into a war".

125. An elected official is always under oath, or didn't you know that? When one of them

violates that oath, especially on something as serious as sending our troops to war based on outright lies, they are guilty of a serious crime. Had Libby not covered for Cheney in his role in exposing an undercover agent, he could possibly have been charged with treason.

And if Cheney had been charged with ordering torture, which I'm sure you know is a crime, he would have been found guilty. He has admitted to that crime publicly. In his own words. If this country had the guts to prosecute men like Cheney, I have no doubt he would be convicted of that crime.

And if Cheney had been charged with violating his oath of office by lying this country into war, and the evidence presented of his role in the deceit which we saw plenty of during the ACORN case coming out of his 'shadow government', I have no doubt any jury would have found him guilty.

It's sad you think that it's okay for someone in his high position can commit a crime of torture, can lie a country into war, and that it is no big deal.

'High crimes and misdemeanors' are the charges Cheney should be subjected to. He lied with deadly results, under his oath of office. That is treason.

139. You're seriously defending Cheney now? The Constitution is the Statute, the law of the

land, that was violated by Cheney when he lied to get this country into war. Since the Constitution is specific about when this country should get into a war, and Cheney took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, that is what he violated. If he did not, a trial would have revealed that, wouldn't it? But when someone is suspected of a major crime and there is evidence that they have committed that crime, they are generally charged with the crime.

He has publicly stated 'I would do it again' wrt to ordering torture. I believe we have laws against torture. We certainly are a party to International laws against torture.

Here, let me make it simply for you. If someone hires a hitman to murder someone else, their spouse, boss etc even though they are nowhere near the scene of the crime themselves (and we know Cheney would never be found anywhere near a war zone) that person will be charged with murder.

Cheney has admitted that he ordered torture, and that he 'would do it again'. He also ordered the outing of Valerie Plame a crime of treason according to most legal experts. HE should have been charged with that crime. Instead others were able to cover for him, obstructing justice was the charge against them. Preventing the prosecutor from holding Cheney accountable by lying. Libby was convicted remember?

You are free to defend Cheney all you want, but the world knows who lied us into war, we SAW him lie, publicly, over and over again.

The man is a war criminal, undicted so far, but hopefully someone with the guts to do it will prosecute him one day.

122. Fraud on the people of the United States - nt

126. We don't have enough time!

Pick anything. Never mind, I'll start: That heartless lump of hate outed a covert CIA operative. He lied us into a war. He ordered and/or sanctioned torture, thereby countermanding the Geneva Conventions to which we are a signatory. He's also a manifest war profiteer.

POTUS Obama said he was looking forward not backward. Obviously he didn't mean it for everybody -- just the Bush Administration. Otherwise, Cheney might possibly have been indicted. But, NO. He's Barack Obama and he approves this crime.

70. facepalm.,

A new report from an independent task force finds that the Bush administration committed torture. The decision to do so, made by top officials and the president himself, was unprecedented. “here is no evidence there had ever before been the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after Sept. 11, directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody,” writes the U.S. Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment.

The task force, an eleven-person team led by former Congressman Asa Hutchinson, a Republican and an undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security during the Bush administration, and former Democratic Congressman James R. Jones, sought to piece together “an accurate and authoritative account of how the United States treated people its forces held in custody as the nation mobilized to deal with a global terrorist theat.” The New York Times called the report “the most ambitious independent attempt to date to assess the detention and interrogation programs.”

In the years since 2001, journalists, lawyers and activists have been unable to get the Central Intelligence Agency, Justice Department and Bush administration to state unequivocally that the interrogation tactics used on detainees constituted torture. The Obama administration chose not to commission an official study of interrogation and detention tactics, saying it was unproductive to “look backwards.” But it is “indisputable,” the report’s authors conclude, that torture occurred at Guantánamo, the C.I.A.’s so-called black sites and other war-zone detention centers.

76. ---

Article 3 -- Geneva Conventions bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs. Until recently it remained unclear whether the article applied to CIA interrogators, located overseas, who were questioning high-ranking members of al-Qaeda and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants.” In July 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hamdan decision that this article does indeed apply to top terror suspects detained in CIA-run prisons as well as at Guantanamo Bay. "Quoting Article Three is like quoting the Bible for international lawyers," says Peter Danchin, a Columbia University legal expert.

93. He was VP. He had no authority to order torture.

Part of his evil genius was placing himself in a position where he had no authority to order criminal actions, so he can't be legally responsible for those actions. The idiot he put in the oval office is.

74. he isn't a whistleblower

A whistleblower reveals only that information that shows misconduct. Manning didn't do that. The vast majority of what he stole and gave to Assange to reveal did not show any misconduct, and he himself had no idea what it contained. I don't even know if anything at all that he stole showed any misconduct according to the law. That isn't a whistleblower - a label that Assange insisted he be referred to by the way - by any stretch of the imagination. Who knows why he stole all those documents, but it had nothing to do with whistleblowing. Clearly, his intent in stealing the vast majority of information and turning it over to be revealed he did not know himself what it contained or whether or not any of it contained any information concerning misconduct. Whatever his personal objective was it most certainly wasn't whistleblowing. By definition, he is not a whistleblower.

What he is is a thief. He knew that what he was doing was illegal and that he was not doing it with any intention of whistleblowing but for some personal reason of his own. As I understand it, he had to hack a password to get access to it as he did not have free access to either all or most of the documents he stole.

63. He indiscriminately dumped every State Department cable for the last 50 yrs

87. We should have had that material made available to us right here in the US for the past 60

years. We have a right to know what our government is doing in our name. Too bad we didn't know what Reagan was up to in Central America eg. If we had real free press here, our government would be a lot more careful about the crimes they commit in our name. Such as Iraq eg.

Since when btw, did Democrats decide that the people have no right to know what their government is doing?

128. Since the foundation of this nation and every one before that...

The ability to speak in confidence to others in the diplomatic process is absolutely critical.

What reason do you think that you, personally, should have access to DoS assessments of foreign leaders? Why do you think that you should be privy to high level negotiations? That is the epitome of entitlement. You deserve to know because you are just that special and for no other reason?

Let me blunt, as everything else seems to just bounce off.

If other nations don't think that they can talk in private to us then that makes diplomacy more difficult. If diplomacy is more difficult then guys with guns, like me, get called in sooner and more people die.

That is what your boy Bradley has accomplished. He made the process of peace more difficult.

138. I don't believe anyone said that diplomats shouldn't be able to speak to each in confidence

No one as far as I know, revealed anything they said to each. What was revealed were emails etc. If something is top secret, it should be classified that way. Once someone puts anything in writing without classifying it, especially email, (and please note that Manning did not reveal any 'top secret' information, which he could have) the presumption should be there that it is not safe. As Gates said, no harm was done other than a little embarrassment.

I hope Gates is called as a witness in this trial, but I doubt it would be allowed unfortunately.

I know this, there is no way I would put ANYTHING in an email I would be worried about the world seeing. So clearly there was nothing in the released cables that they were particularly worried. Either that OR 1) we have very stupid people working for the State Dept, or 2) that material should have been classified as Top Secret. It wasn't.

As to what right we have to know what our government is doing? Are you serious?

129. Well how about FDR and the Manhattan Project

Or FDR and the D-Day invasion
or FDR and the plans to invade Japan
or Harry Truman and the Manhattan Project
Or JFK and the Bay of Pigs before it happened
Or JFK and the U-2 flights during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Or Jimmy Carter and Desert One
This list can go on for quite a while

Again I ask are you freaking serious?

The people do not HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ALL ACTIONS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT.....CLASSIFIED DATA EXISTS FOR MANY REASONS.......PICK UP A FREAKING BOOK.

120. Every criminal torturer in the CIA, DOJ's OLC and war criminals Bush & Cheney

were held above the law by Obama and only required the statement "look forward" to avoid prosecution for far worse. Why all the hatred and need to torture and punish a whistleblower? The first statement is the answer to the question. To protect war criminals one must destroy the whistleblowers.

Why do so many here agree with war crimes yet hate so passionately one that would expose such crimes? I don't know, perhaps because a man they idolize lets war criminals walk and even praises them at their libraries while punishing those that oppose such crimes, the sin of emulation is my guess. Disgusting to me.

35. I agreed with you. I just presumed he would have written to his local representative,

although as you have pointed out, he could have used Bernie Sanders or any other member of Congress, if he chose to. As to hm being *stupid*, that's a given. I have characterized in other threads his actions as being both sloppy and criminal.

68. There's also a thrill-seeking aspect to espionage

5. One of the stupider articles published at Truthout--and that's really saying a lot.

Marjorie Cohn must think no other lawyers read Truthout.

She conveniently forgets that Manning had a duty to report to the IG or a member of Congress under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988. His duty was not to give 700k records to a commercial enterprise. Now, granted, whistleblowing under the MWPA is a lot less glamorous, but it would have been the right thing to do.

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

10. Whistleblowers and

War Crimes. My question is who is driving this aggressive effort against whistleblowers in the Obama administration? Is this push from the President himself or from an advisor? It would seem that with the current public focus on drone strikes and in particular signature strikes, there would be more of a move of self imposed transparency, more support of encouraging whistleblowers to report violations of policies, procedures, rules, regulations, laws.
Since the United States is a signator to the international laws regarding war crimes and has recently referred to the Assad regime as being subject to potential war crime charges, it seems somewhat hypocritical to not investigate these possible alleged war crimes that Bradley Manning has brought to light or the recent issues regarding former President Bush and his administration. Should not Congress be investigating the possible war crimes related to signature drone strikes?

15. There's proper procedure to report warcrimes, as well as a proper chain…

A proper chain to whom those crimes are supposed to be reported while in the performance of one's duties. There's few other flaws in this line of reasoning that will certainly exploited by the prosecution.

Such as the non-specific nature of the information that he released. Also, there's a false equivalence in comparing Manning to Daniel Ellsberg. The Pentagon Papers were meant to be historical documents compiled by Ellsberg research, information whose eventual purpose was to be made public… To be seen by Presidents, public officials, historians and even the general public.

After the government went out of it's way to hide that information, and the truth about the Vietnam War, Ellsberg (a civilian), was quite correct to leak his own specifically compiled information to the press.

Manning, on the other hand, did not compile the information he released, his role was only that of custodian. He had absolutely no way of knowing the complete extent of the information that he was responsible for securing. Also, that information was never meant to be made part of the public record without a thorough vetting and declassification process. Now whether or not that it would eventually become declassified is a moot point. Manning's transferral of that information to an unauthorized agent, Wikileaks, before the vetting process will certainly be problematic for his defense.

Also, as a military member, unlike Ellsberg, the civilian, he was bound by a certain set of rules that could not be applied to Ellsberg.

What Manning's defense needs to do is prove that his orders to secure and maintain the data under his custodianship were, in fact, illegal orders. That he also did everything within his power to report these crimes, as he perceived them, in both the proper manner and to the proper channels. Which would also call into question his qualifications as a valid witness. Was he there and observed the alleged war crimes in person? What were his qualifications to classify the information held on the information that he released AS war crimes? Also, his other actions and the persons that he's talked to are going be examined as well.

These are things that he most certainly will need to prove in his favor if he is going to win his defense.

All in all, Manning's acquittal will hinge upon his success or lack of success in either changing the definition of whistle-blowing to his favor, or validating that his actions were valid in violating the terms of his military duties as they stood, by proving that his actions did not damage the security of the US and most of all what were his intentions.

Did he do this out of expectations of personal gain? Did he release that information because of some personal vendetta that he held against the government?

110. Of course, the system is broken

But in spite of that, it's not up to some unauthorized low ranking military service member to unilaterally throw the baby out with this bathwater.

A defense like that will certainly convict his ass.

Again, you're asking him to stick his neck out by being the single arbiter on whether crimes were committed through military action. The prosecution will simply argue that crimes weren't exposed in the files that Manning, without any authorization, transferred to a commercial enterprise that was never legally entitled to have in first place.

You may define that as a cover-up, but it's well within reason to classify the stuff in those tapes as not definitive one way or the other.

Manning's complete circumvention the system in the first place will certainly not be a defense that'll get him acquitted.

So, if you're yearning for a martyr, Manning will definitely be your man if he tries to go that route.

16. My post in the Guardian UK's comment section last night.

Manning is just a scapegoat in a dog and pony show. The real crimes were of course those committed by the Bush Administration and the neocons when they lied to the US and bugged and lied to the UN in order to invade Iraq thereby directly or indirectly killing over 250,000 Iraqi innocents and over 5500 coalition troops. What Manning did, weather right or wrong, has led to consequences infinitesimally small when compared to that fact.

Here we are 10 years after the US invaded and began multiple atrocities including strafing innocent Iraqis in their cars, Abu Ghraib, the made up Jessica Lynch story, leaving hundreds of thousands of rounds unattended so that eventually they were used as roadside bombs, 8 billion dollars falling off the back of a truck, putting frat boys in charge of rebuilding the countries infrastructure and failing at the task, the Reuters incident, the targeting and killing of reporters for Al Jazeera....the list goes on and on.

Yet what the powers that be want us all to take away from the whole debacle is that if you have a conscience and you use it while serving as a soldier and it effects "their" interests than they will punish you as they have done Bradley Manning.
They will put you in a cell for three years and turn up the AC and declare you "on suicide watch" while you await a day in court freezing with no clothes or blanket. The message is clear. Justice doesn't matter and our collective national conscience is as pure as our relationship with the brutal Saudi Arabian oil sheiks.

Now I know all the military "justice" hawks on this thread will swear by their military's action right or wrong and say he signed the contract so he's responsible for breaking his oath but at the end of the day military men the world over have broken their oaths and went over to the other side when their own side represented nefarious doings. I think those same hawks here would congratulate young german soldiers who broke ranks at the risk of losing their lives. The only difference this time around is they consider themselves and their government without blame. The Ricky Gervais sketch comes to mind where the Nazi's ask themselves "are we the baddies?" Well the answer is yes. Yes you are. You are in the eyes of the world not much better than the terrorist sickos you are killing. Technically Bin Laden won in some ways as he made you as messed up mentally as he was. We have stooped to his level.
The trail of Bradley Manning is actually a chance for America to show it has some moral fiber still. However, I think most of the world already knows what's coming, as nowadays, thanks to the internet and people like Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the emperor has no clothes.

If we learned anything from the Arab Spring it is that one soldier can change the world. The embassy cables have helped bring about the fall of 3 despotic nepotistic regimes that incidentally were allied with the US and Britain in some way. Now more countries are turning against their autocratic rulers and shining a light on their rulers relationships with foreign governments ( in other words the USA). Personally I think Bradley Manning deserves the Medal Of Honor as the US military has been unsuccessful in two countries in effecting regime change whereas he's 3 for 3. One soldier with a computer vs the entire US MIC and trillions of dollars and he's made them look weak. That is why they must have him jailed for life in this show trial. In the future Bradley will be seen as a modern day Paul Revere or Patrick Henry and Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the neocons will represent America's darkest days.

26. What war crime would that be exactly?

The helicopter incident? I believe I read that wasnt a war crime unless they knew there were civilians there and did it on purpose.
But hey for the sake of argument lets pretend that was a war crime it doesnt give him and out for stealing and providing classified documents to wikileaks like the embassy memos.

111. Actually pretending is as close you are going to get

until charges are filed and a real judge and jury comes along and renders a verdict on that.
Also I will point out yet again you are ignoring other facts in your quest to glorify Manning which is he didnt just release the helicopter video but many other documents that were not even related to that incident.

22. Before we go tossing out medals,

lets see what happens in those countries over the next couple years. My money is on things getting worse for the people, not better. But i could be wrong......
And if manning DID deserve a medal, it certianly would NOT be the CMH. Jeeze.

23. There is no way this is espionage.

He didn't do this to help any enemies of the U.S. That is, unless you count the people of the United States as enemies. Too many people in our government do see us as enemies. To them, we should be as ignorant as possible and we should believe whatever bullshit they give us whenever we ask questions. Ultimately, the truth is their greatest enemy.

34. No--he's UCMJ, so he isn't charged under the 'Espionage Act.' He's

charged under Article 134. Some specifications are that he violated the McCarran Act. This isn't the 'Espionage Act of 1917.' It's a different intent standard, meant to cover far more situations than the Espionage Act covers.

McCarran is far more reaching than the Espionage Act, and it's sloppy lawyering to conflate them.

59. So all 195,000 troops that invaded Iraq are guilty, then?

61. The point...

... is parroted around that what Manning did was ok because he exposed "War Crimes."

Ignoring the fact he released 100,000s of other documents...

Ignoring the fact that there are legitimate chains of reporting he chose not to use...

Ignoring the fact that it is far more likely that he was striking out at the organization he had failed at and felt had treated him unfairly...

Ignoring the fact that if he really gave a shit about peace or people he wouldn't have done what he did because it made diplomacy more difficult and thus the use of arms more likely...

Ignoring the fact that he knew that the information was to be distributed to the entire world to the benefit of a private organization in direct violation of the oath and promises he voluntarily made...

and of course ignoring the fact that in all of these threads about dipshit Bradley Manning, no one seems to be able to say what those war crimes were other than to talk in vague generalities and "If I were king of the world it would be a crime" whiny bullshit.

124. Quoting from Marjorie Cohn's article on Truthout today:

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the "Collateral Murder" video violated this provision of Geneva.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population "shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded." That article also says, "No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts." The firing on rescuers portrayed in the "Collateral Murder" video violates these provisions of Geneva.

Finally, Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that "maltreatment of dead bodies" is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

48. Aside from little insignificant things like torture,

the war was a crime!

U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Robert L. Jackson was the Chief U.S. Nuremberg Tribunal Prosecutor.

On August 12, 1945, Justice Jackson stated the Tribunal’s conclusions prohibiting aggressive war.
“We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

99. In both the edited and unedited video

they fire upon unarmed people helping the wounded. I guess only stupid people feel it is wrong to fire on unarmed people helping the wounded.

But hey when the rules of engagement are classified and the rules opened up so killing civilians isn't a high priority I also guess nothing can be considered a war crime. This must be how you justify the killing of the unarmed men assisting the wounded as well as the children getting wounded.

February 05, 2008
Did Rumsfeld Authorize War Crimes?The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraqby STEPHEN SOLDZ

Wikileaks has obtained the long kept secret Rules of Engagement (ROE) for U.S. troops in Iraq. This document sets out the rules guiding authorized U.S. troop actions in that occupation. While the Wikileaks document dates from 2005, as these ROEs generally change slowly the rules for today are likely similar, though we can’t be sure, of course, to what extent more recent ROE’s differ.
Among several interesting nuggets in the ROE, it provides indications that U.S. attacks likely to result in civilian deaths required authorization at the top of the Pentagon, by the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). Thus, the ROE states repeatedly; "If the target is in a HIGH CD area, SECDEF approval is required." And what is the definition of a High Collateral Damage area? The ROE contains a set of explicit definitions of its terms. There we find High Collateral Damage Targets defined as:

"Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on noncombatant persons and structures, including:

(A) Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or greater;

(B) Significant effects on Category I No Strike protected sites in accordance with Ref D; (

C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects that significantly impact the non-combatant population, including significant effects on the environment/facilities/infrastructure not related to an adversary’s war making ability; or

(D) Targets in close proximity to known human shields."

~snip~

As we have seen repeatedly, from the numerous roadblock killings of civilians to the Haditha massacre, this ROE authorization to use force can be used to provide cover for virtually any civilian killings. The ROE suggests that preventing such deaths was low on the priority list of those officials writing the rules of engagement for the occupation. Even so, a military study found that less than half of US occupation soldiers would report a unit member for violating an ROE.

130. Bloody fucking Christ

I will post this one more time. The van full of civilians became a legitimate target the SECOND it rushed into the free fire zone that was made a LEGAL free fire zone by people in civilian clothes carrying weapons. AK-47's and RPG's are weapons that will get you killed in that part of Baghdad on that day if you are carrying them and are not part of the US military or Iraqi police and Iraqi military. It doesn't freaking matter if the civilians in the van were transporting 101 Dalmatians, they became LEGAL targets when the chose to enter the free fire zone near Rustimayiah that day. I have been in Iraq on several tours and saw more than a handful of incidents like that. The ENTIRE FREAKING REASON the Pilot asks for PERMISSION is because the Overall Commander is conferring with his JAG officer (Laws of War LAWYER) to make sure that the target in question is a legit target. That video feed is also playing in the TOC while the helicopter is circling asking for permission to fire. The fucking JAG officer is the one that says it is legal or illegal to fire. Guess why they didn't shoot the unarmed guy crawling around? BECAUSE that is an ACTUAL WAR CRIME. The JAG officer would have had them arrested when they landed, had they done that. What they did was ask for permission to shoot the van that was removing wounded insurgents. The JAG officer, determined the van was a LEGAL TARGET and gave the commander permission to shoot. The commander then gave the Apache Crew the authorization to fire. IT WAS AS LEGAL AS BUYING A BEER ON YOUR 21st birthday............THERE WAS NO WAR CRIME FROM THAT VIDEO......

I already posted that the rules of engagement were classified by Rumsfeld and watered down so that the US rules pretty much allowed murdering bystanders. The Geneva convention on the other hand is not a classified piece of shit pseudo doctrine created by Bush's cronies that changes the laws to condone pathological exploitation of the rules.

Rummy and company used a classified made up and adulterated set of rules to justify the killings. But the Geneva convention does not nor should it condone the activities shown in the rescue attempt of the wounded man. One can use any twisted logic they like to justify the killings but if people are honest with themselves they know those men were fucking murdered.

Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes

~snip~

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the "Collateral Murder" video violated this provision of Geneva.

82. I know-It's like an alternate universe

"...An Army intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, the 23-year-old Manning - outraged at what he saw - allegedly leaked tens of thousands of State Department cables to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. These cables show U.S. officials covering up everything from U.S. tax dollars funding child rape in Afghanistan to illegal, unauthorized bombings in Yemen. Manning is also accused of leaking video evidence of U.S. pilots gunning down more than a dozen Iraqis in Baghdad, including two journalists for Reuters, and then killing a father of two who stopped to help them. The father's two young children were also severely wounded.

"Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle," a not-terribly-remorseful U.S. pilot can be heard remarking in the July 2007 "Collateral Murder" video...."

131. That article is wrong on basic facts

Manning was not in Kuwait, Manning was a FOB HAMMER, east of Baghdad, Iraq

Manning did not release tens of thousands of documents, he release hundreds of thousands.....

And The Collateral Damage video does not show a war crime, it shows Apache pilots CAREFULLY asking for permission to engage a legal target, in this case armed men in Baghdad.........

That article is wrong on so many basic things.........Dispute that please.

Edit: Also Haditha was the Marines not the Army....another basic fact wrong. I won't excuse Haditha, but I also can't trust an article that gets so much simple information wrong. At least pretend to do some research whomever wrote that article.

98. sorry

that was someone else in the conversation. it wasn't about Cheney specifically

but you did say,
Default answer seems to be "I personally think that the Iraq War was illegal, contrary to all law and precedent, and so that is what counts. Thus, any action taken as part of the war is a war crime"

73. It blames Obama for a "war crime" in the last paragraph and that's all the law it needs:

Obama himself has also violated Manning's presumption of innocence, saying two years ago that Manning "broke the law." But although the Constitution requires the President to enforce the laws, Obama refuses to allow the officials and lawyers from the Bush administration who sanctioned and carried out a regime of torture - which constitutes a war crime under Geneva - to be held legally accountable. Apparently if Bradley Manning had committed war crimes, instead of exposing them, he would be a free man, instead of facing life in prison for his heroic deeds.

78. wow, that mask fell off with a clang... (nt)

79. and right on my big toe!

Any slip and fall attorneys in the house?

p.s. the point I was getting at was that the whole thing is a pile of crap that conveniently blames Obama for sundry Bush-Cheney outrages and therefore needs no other logic. Old story. But yes, in my view the last paragraph is as fantastical i.e. crapola-filled as the rest. Sorry about the confusion!

103. Lying for political reasons is bad.

Republicans have spent decades claiming there are welfare recipients who drive Cadillacs. They keep that lie going because it serves their political purposes. But it's still a lie, and it's wrong.

The same is true for Manning. He was not a whistleblower. There were no war crimes in the information he released. But Manning's supporters keep lying about because it serves their political purposes.

"Collateral Murder" was legal. Wikileaks even pointed out the guy carrying an AK-47. His presence makes the attack legal during a war. And the fact that the attacks like this are legal in a war should be a big reason to be against war.

As for the rest, what war crime was revealed when Manning released Castro's favorite cigar? Or the names of thousands of people handing over intelligence to the US?

Finally, Manning's supporters keep saying lines like "Manning fulfilled his legal duty to report war crimes.". This is also a lie. If he had His duty would be to report the crimes to his superiors, or the DoD's inspector general, or any member of Congress. Instead, he handed over the documents to Wikileaks.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. 1034, as amended, prohibits interference with a military member’s right to make protected communications to members of Congress; Inspectors General; members of DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organizations; and other persons or organizations (including the chain of command) designated by regulation or administrative procedures. A protected communication is any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG, as well as any communication made to a person or organization designated under competent regulations to receive such communications, which a member of the Armed Services reasonably believes reports a violation of law or regulation (including sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health or safety.